The Definition of Marriage: Anyone and Anything that are in “Love”:

The current president and his administration, along with a select few, are seeking to redefine a century’s old and sacred institution. Marriage has been one of the most widely discussed topics, especially in light of activist judges and state legislatures that are willing to forego the whole will-of-the-people thing and do what they want. Even if what they want is diametrically and categorically in opposition to what the majority of people desire.

Some would like to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. But many of us know all too well that to begin messing with the definition of marriage is to open a Pandora’s Box that won’t be easily closed.

Once the definition of marriage includes same-sex couples, what’s next? Who will tell the polygamist that they are forbidden from being “legal?” Who will tell the pedophile that their form of “love” is wrong? And what about the couple desiring to enter into an adult incestuous relationship, who will denounce them?

“The fact that polygamists, and indeed those with other sexual proclivities, would use the same “civil rights” and “equality” arguments forwarded by homosexuals seeking “marriage” rights has been predicted for years.”

And now that a few states have legalized same-sex marriage, some without so much as a vote from the people, polygamists are on the warpath to further their cause. But someone tell me, who’s next? We laughed at Dennis Rodman for “marrying” himself back in the 90’s, but where does this radical redefinition end?

If marriage is no longer defined on moral grounds, and, in fact, morality is left completely out of the discussion when making any laws regarding marriage. Then who has the right to say who is allowed to marry whom, and on what grounds do we tell one group that they are protected and in the same breath tell another that they are not?

This statement quite correctly concludes that if one group of people, homosexuals, is given permission to marry then equality demands that all groups of people be given the same freedom and protection. Exactly what moral code dictates that two men can marry but a man and two women cannot? This is logically incompatible.

“To say laws about private sexual conduct are unconstitutional, the court, in effect, opened a sexual Pandora’s box,” he said. “If there is a constitutional right to have homosexual sex, how can one deny there is a constitutional right to group sex? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to consensual incest? How can one deny there is a right to have sex with animals? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to polygamy?”

The bottom line is that if homosexuals are given the “right” under the constitution to marry then we can only sit back as more groups come forward demanding equal treatment. After all, that is the point isn’t it? To make sure that all peoples and groups are given equal treatment? And who will be able to tell any other group, from pedophiles to prostitutes to polygamists that they are wrong and do not have the same rights as everyone else?

You see, when you start messing with the definition of marriage you open a can of worms that no one will be able to close until marriage, and this country, no longer resemble anything imagined by our founding fathers. I wonder what they would say if they were here today?